Matthew Cox | Inside True Crime Podcast - WARNING! The Next Civil War is Happening Now | Whatifalthist

Episode Date: August 18, 2024

WARNING! The Next Civil War is Happening Now | Whatifalthist

For a limited time at McDonald's, enjoy the tasty breakfast trio. Your choice of chicken or sausage McMuffin or McGrittles with a hash brown and a small iced coffee for $5.5 plus tax. Available until 11 a.m. at participating McDonald's restaurants. Price excludes flavored iced coffee and delivery. Why just survive back to school when you can thrive by creating a space that does it all for you, no matter the size. Whether you're taking over your parents' basement or moving to campus, IKEA has hundreds of design ideas and affordable options to complement. at any budget. After all, you're in your small space era. It's time to own it. Shop now at IKEA.ca. America will have a civil war within the next year, and I've looked at a variety

of historic models that explain this. Most historic conflicts, there's this underlying bubbling brew, and then it gets triggered by some event. Once dominoes start to fall in quick succession the transfer of power is the easiest place where things get really bad the system is being rigged more than people think the internet is being used for political purposes we have this underlying brew that means we have to have a war the question is what's going to start it i started my channel about 10 years ago on my 13th birthday and for the first seven years it was alternate history where what if the The Nazis won the Civil War and one of the South won World War II. And I started to pivot the channel into the current content like anthropology, geopolitics,

history, philosophy. The thing that I'm known the most for now and the thing that I've gone on almost all the podcasts for is my prediction that America is going to have a civil war, where I have a prediction that America will have a revolution or a civil war within the next five years and especially the next year. And I've looked at a variety of historic models that explain this. And I've made about like six hours of content on this. And so it's something I can talk for a long time about.

The first video I watched was, what if a civil war were fought now? So, and just what were the, you know, how would that play out? Which is funny because politics have switched so much since the actual civil war. The South was, you know, more obviously, Democrat. and the North was more Republican or more conservative and more liberal. And obviously that switched completely currently. But so I had watched that video and then recently with the Trump, the attempted assassination of Trump. So and so that's why I kind of feel like, I think we talked about this earlier, like, like how does that fit into true crime?

Like to me, that's like the ultimate crime taking out your political opponents is, is super interesting to me. And that in and of itself as a crime. that actually ended up kind of morphing that conversation. I was having that conversation with one of my buddies. And he was saying, yeah, but that's not necessarily political. That guy may or may not have been just a lone wolf. And I was like, yeah, but you don't, George Carlson said this. I don't know if you've ever seen that clip where he says, like, you don't have to have a formal

conspiracy if all of your interests align. Yes. So I think that as a result, I think that that that is something. something that kind of falls in the political arena of, hey, let's take this guy out before he becomes president and how that would, you know, and just how that happened. So wondering what your thoughts on the attempted assassination of Trump and how that would play out, had he been three or four inches one way or the other. I was on his friend, Danny Jones podcast yesterday. And so this is a point I brought up in that last podcast, which is there are times, one

of my friends's line. I don't believe in conspiracies, but I don't believe in coincidences either. And what that means is that I think in lots of cases where there are things that seems statistically improbable, that it's a confluence of self-interest of multiple of factions at the same time. So if it's the Middle Ages and the nobility treats the peasants like trash, there's not this council of nobility that determines we're going to treat the peasants terribly. It's you have thousands of noblemen across Europe who have an incentive to do so. And so over the centuries, it gets worse and worse for the peasants. And so that's the case for a lot of, I don't really believe in cabals.

I think there are cabals. I don't believe in them that often. I think it's often, as you say, a confluence of different self-interest that push an underlying thing. And I actually predicted Trump's assassination two years ago because I was, there are four wars I compare occurring. our current crisis in America, too, because for those who don't know my content, I do predict that America and the world, by extension, will experience a demographic cycle. So I say there's two historic events. I talk about the demographic crisis and the psychological crisis, and that I think the world's population will crash by half due to collapsing birth rate and mental health issues,

which I've coined the psychological black death. And then the second thing is I predict that America and the world will have a political crisis, which I call the American, the second American Civil War as it manifests here. And there are four different historic conflicts I use as parallels for the coming second American Civil War. The English Civil War fought in the 1600s, the French Revolution fought in the late 1700s, the fall of the Roman Republic in the first century BC, and then the American Civil War in the mid-1800s.

I frequently look for parallels across each of those conflicts, for figures or time or threads or events, which you can easily parallel from one to the other. And one of the strongest parallels, and this is a lot of backstory to explain how I predicted Trump would get assassinated, one of the strongest parallels is the fall of the Roman Republic in today, where this is around 100 BC, Rome was this great republic that had colonies that stretched from Spain to Turkey or Syria. And Rome had used to be a great democracy, and it used to, they used to have a strong middle class, but in the process of becoming an empire, Rome saw mass rises in inequality.

Mega corporations took over the economy. Religion collapsed. Traditional values collapsed. They had a feminist movement. There was mass immigration, where a third of Rome's population became. immigrant slave, which crushed the Roman middle class. And so all of these factors came together to really destroy the traditional Roman society. And there was a, there was a political figure called, or there were multiple called the Groki brothers. And the Groki brothers were part of

the Populares Roman party, where Rome was a republic with two political parties, the Optimates and the Populares. And the Grockeys ran off the make Rome great again agenda. Their goal was to split up the old aristocratic estates, give them to the Roman middle class, break up the Roman megacorporations for the old Roman middle class that had been wiped out by foreign slave labor. And so I had drawn the parallel between Trump and the Grockeys. And then what happened is that the Optimates, who for the sake of this argument are the Democrats, they first tried to get the Grockeys, they first of all tried to have a legal battle because they said the Groghys were attempted dictators who were trying to take out the Rome's Republic. And then when that legal battle in the smearing

didn't work, they assassinated the Gronkies. And so I predicted that Trump would get assassinated two years ago from looking at this parallel. And so that was a prediction of mine that turned out to be true. And the thing is, you know what the stuff in abstract, but it's crazy to see it happen in real life. Obviously, I didn't do that research. But, you know, there's the theory. It's like, you know, the first thing they try and do is, the first thing they try and do is smear you. You know, then they try and have you arrested.

And then if they can't stop at that, then they try and have you killed. Exactly. And the biggest reason why I think we're going to have a civil war in the next five years, but especially the next year, is that both political parties have kind of pushed their coalition to the end point where people start civil wars when they don't really have a better option. And one of the things I've frequently said is that for both the Republicans and the Democrats, passed a certain threshold, the incentive for their leadership is to start a war. Because keep in mind, every single president who started a war in the last century was reelected.

And that's a common principle where if you want to rally your people, you have a war. And so there's a couple different levers that can't get pushed much further. One is immigration, another is the budget, and then also just the internal unity of the coalitions. I mean, the fact that we had Biden versus Trump for two elections in a row, what that means to me is that for both the Republicans and the Democrats, they can't get new leadership because their coalitions are so, both the Republicans and the Democrats, their coalitions are so pulled apart by various factions

that they need to pick a single leader to unify them and they can't change out leaders because any new leader they'd pick would not work with all the coalitions. And so you're entering a period of desperation. And so for both the Republicans and the Democrats, they've kind of pushed their original party to the point where it's difficult for them to,

to keep their coalition together. And so past a certain point, the only time that, the only way you could unify either the republic, and this is a thing where if there's some part of it you want me to explain, I'd be happy to. But past a certain point, the only way you could keep the Democrats or the Republicans united is having a major war. Yeah. No, I was going to, I mean, I don't even think, I don't think that's, needs explanation.

I don't think there's any dispute that the country's so polarized at this point, it either tears itself apart. Or if something happens, which is only going to be a war, that unifies everybody against a common phone. Yeah, yeah. So as far as the Trump, like you don't, you don't feel it was just a lone wolf or you feel like it was a lone wolf that was... I don't know, man. I'm dying for you to hear this. I don't, I refuse to have an opinion on this subject.

Okay. The evidence's not out. I mean, anything I'd, I feel like I'm going to hear something in 15 years and I'll be like, damn, I wish I knew that when that happened. And so, yeah, I really don't know. My initial thought was that it was some kind of deep state thing or like some kind of internal part of the executive bureaucracy who pushed for it. That's what my initial intuitive guess was. But seeing that he was a Republican from, he was a Republican from Southwestern Pennsylvania, a 20-year-old guy who didn't shoot well, like that kind of threw me off. He could just be a lone wolf.

If I had to make a guess, and I know I promised I just wouldn't say, I would have guessed that it would be some small, like, executive branch doing a bad job. Like, you know, the left has, like, a hundred different sub factions. My best guess is one of, like, one of those weak sub factions tried in a lame way that failed. Like, I don't know, some, like, some think tank or part of the bureaucracy. Because I think if the FBI did it, they do a much better job. Um, but my guess would be the, because keep in mind, there's like a hundred different special interests inside the left. And it was done poorly enough that I think that if it was done by one of the big three letter agencies, they would have done a much better job if that makes sense. But the whole thing of like, um, of like the secret security, like I'm sure your audience and you know about all the weird variables like that, uh, the hill or the, the, the area where he shot, not the hill.

the area where he shot the promontory he shot Trump from it wasn't no one guarded it and the his his secret service agents didn't uh there were a lot of mistakes that makes it make it suspicious and I will not have a definitive opinion but my guess is that some like uh kind of weaker organization pushed for it so one the Republican thing he's never voted like if you're born if you're born into a Catholic family, you're Catholic. You know, if you're born into a Republican family, you register as a Republican. So I don't know that he, we really don't know because they haven't been able to look at his social media.

They haven't been able to. So, you know, I don't know. I don't, that, that's out. I mean, for me, that's out. And for me, I think that there's so much surveillance and tracking of our devices and everything else. I, what I don't think is difficult is for the NSA to do a switch. of people in certain areas to say, hey, who has, who is a shooter?

He was on the team and, well, he tried out several times with a team on high school. Yeah. He was an avid shooter because he was constantly going and shooting at the local shooting range, you know, possesses the weapons. Yeah. And, and we don't know what his rhetoric was on social media. So if the NSA say, hey, this guy's rhetoric says he is, you know, a possible. possibly whatever, homegrown, assassin, lone wolf, terrorist, whatever you want to call it. And he has all these other characteristics.

How hard is it for us to push him to a spot where he will follow through with some of these comments? You know, people make crazy comments. And so if he's made these comments, now we don't know because for some reason, they can't seem to get into his phone and find his social media. And like, there's all these really odd things that are happening. The other thing that kills me is they keep using this one photo where he looks like just an innocent little boy. But I've seen a half a dozen other photos where he doesn't look like an innocent little boy.

Like even the, even the Fox News and all of these conservative, they're even using this photo. Yeah, yeah. Why do you keep using this photo of him from four or five years ago in high school? So my, my thought is, is it possible that they were able to funnel him into a position where he would, where he would take a shot? And then we need, then we can take him out or. You know, was someone influencing him?

Like, you know, I don't know. I mean, the potential is it may just be he's just a lone wolf. This is why I reserve having an educated opinion, because I assume there's a lot more information I don't know here. And what you said makes sense. I had never thought of it that way, but it does add up. And think of it. The government knows every single thing you search.

If you have someone's search history, you know exactly who they are. It's scary that the government has that power. But yeah, that what you're saying is it makes a lot of sense. I never thought of that, but I mean, you have someone's search history, you know the kind of person, and you could push them towards that. And it also gives a tremendous amount of plausible deniability. Right. And that could make, like, one of the three-letter agencies be responsible because when I first heard the story, that was my immediate thought. And then as more info came out, I gradually moved away from it. But on an intuitive basis, it makes a lot of sense. And the... Yeah, I mean, like, one of the ideas I have that doesn't really have any evidence is that I think that there's already a very powerful, and this is basically just me making stuff up. I think there's already a powerful government AI that goes through everyone's search results in all of their data and then automatically assesses people for basically how dangerous they are to the government. I'm going to get to that in a second. but um the so for the um the shooter uh i could definitely see them like using feds to push him towards this

and it gives them an infinite amount of plausible deniability which is something they'd want because even if this case as of now we are both suspicious that this is pushed by said agencies if it was slightly more suspicious it would be a national outcry right if it was this like trained Belarusian assassin, people would say, oh, yeah, that was totally paid for by the NSA. But if it's a 20-year-old kid from Western Pennsylvania, that gives a lot more possible deniability. And that's so if, like, let's say the CIA or the FBI or the NSA were to Trump, the immediate call would be to abolish the organizations.

Like, you would have abolishing said three-letter agencies would become a major conservative issue if that happened. It might even happen. And so I would see that they would want to have a. a lot of plausible deniability, and this is how you get the plausible deniability, and also you can do it for free. Like, the kid would, the kid would shoot Trump for free. Right. Yeah, and then it stops with him. I mean, like you said, the problem is, is that there just is no definitive proof one way or the other, you know, that if, if it came out

and they said, hey, it was just some disgruntled, you know, whatever, you know, 20-some odd or how old he's 20, yeah, or he was 20, yeah, 20-year-old kid, some 20-year-old kid who disgruntled and he's upset and and he took a shot and that way you know that was it like you'd kind of be like okay and then if you said no no here's what really happened yeah it was it was absolutely a you know a concentrated effort to get him into a position where he would be able to take a shot and we felt he was going to make it yeah he's what he's a 450 feet away with an AR 15 he just a damn good shot chance that he's going to take he's going to get at least a couple of rounds in him so um you know so if you if you found out that was

the case and emails came out and everything else, it would be like, eh, I go with that. Like, I wouldn't be shocked either way, unfortunately, because there's no overwhelming evidence. But what I am curious to know your thoughts on is, what if he had killed him? Yeah, so I was on Chris Williamson last week, and he asked me that exact question. And I think it would start a civil war. It would be blood in the straits. Maybe not a civil war, but there would be, like, I think there at least a thousand people would die. Because what would happen is that conservatives would realize that the game is completely rigged against them, and even if they have a candidate who's overwhelmingly popular, that the leftist establishment would just say a candidate.

And once you reach to that place, it's just you, all the ties of social binding that hold the country together are, they're just gone. and I like to sometimes compare I like to sometimes compare our country to a failed marriage where the equivalent of Trump would be one of an estranged spouse murdering the family dog and like it's just like, no, we can't be married anymore

and not to call the former president dog I did not mean that as an insult. I hope no one takes it that way. But it was just so egregious. Yeah, exactly. Exactly. So I think that's what would happen. But the biggest issue, and this is something that I think conservatives should be aware of, is that Trump, the right today has very little coherent identity.

It's all these different sub-factors. Inside the right, you have libertarians, you have religious fundamentalists, you have people who are basically fascists, you have. You have neocons, boomer cons, like 10 different factions. And Trump is the person who unifies all the factions of the right. And so to pull from the fall of the Roman Republic sample, if Trump dies, the right spirals into warlords because no one is capable of unifying the right except Trump. And you would have to go through this Darwinistic competition phase of all these rightist ideologies fighting each other because you can't find another leader of Trump's charisma and of his. of his just like personal energy. And so that's what would happen.

I think it would probably promulgate a coup. I think we would have some kind of war because it's so egregious. It wouldn't surprise me if the military starts to mutiny if Trump was shot. And so this is how I feel the left strategically in general. The left has no idea how deep the game they're playing is. And so I see a lot of situations in the future and in the like things, alternate scenarios in the past where the leftist. sympathetic deep state totally could have shot Trump without the realization that this would spark

a period of violence that they would lose. From the various sources I get, the impression I get is that the elite and the, I use the deep state. People often mean two things in the deep state. There's one group that means that there's a shadow government. When I see the deep state, I mean the selection of various bureaucratic interests that powers the military industrial complex, the government. America's institutional bureaucracy. So that's what I mean when I say the deep state. From the various sources I have, they are completely delusional. They have no idea what's going on.

They'd have no idea how what the national sentiment is about them. And so I could definitely see them making some kind of critical error, having no idea what the consequences are. Yeah. I was going to, well, I mean, that tends to happen when you surround yourself by yes, men. Yeah, exactly. You know, like it's, it's one, I mean, it's like almost every, you know, Hitler, Stalin. Yeah. You know, that's the main mistake they make is that anybody that disagrees with them, even in their own party, even the people that are supporting you, then they execute them

and then you get to a point where you get nothing. But yes, man, and you start making really bad decisions. Yeah. And they've spent the last decade calling any free thinkers where, I mean, the biggest election pressure since COVID, at least, has been, are you a radical leftist to get into various institutional positions. And so because if you're doing 95% of major corporations, and I'd imagine the government is comparable, has been DEI hiring.

So if nearly 100% of your hires for the last five years have been on this very politically motivated criterion, you're not, that suggests that you've winnowed out the population of anyone who's going to tell you no. Right. That doesn't go well. Yeah. Not for long. No, yeah.

All right. So let's assume there. there's a civil war, right? Which, you know, whether, you know, Trump, you know, getting, Trump being assassinated or not, you're still saying at some point there's a civil war. What that spark is, we don't know, but, you know, or maybe, maybe you have some ideas, but how does that play out? And I have some questions because after watching your video, which, which we'll put in the link, you know, we can put the, I think it's 31 minutes long. Probably. I, that's the, I know, Because see what I'm saying?

Like, I'm a fan. So it's funny because, like I said, I have so many times when guys are come on the show and they're like, bro, I'm a huge fan. And it's funny because now, anyway. So, yeah, it's 31 minutes long and we'll put it in the thing. But as you, I've listened to it before, I've been like, yeah, but what about this? Yeah, but and I only have probably four or five of those. So I'm wondering. And as we get to them, if you can, you know, I'll ask.

That's why I'm here. I mean, I've been on a bunch of these podcasts. if you have specific individual questions, I would rather answer them, because there are probably things I haven't been asked already. Okay. So, do you want me to explain what I think would cause the civil war first, or do you want me, okay, great. So I have a series of triggers that I'm put as most likely to cause a civil war.

The one I would normally put is budget issues, but I'm putting budget issues secondary now because the election's up close. So, he wants Khan Bank of America out of $250,000 using nothing but a fake ID and his charm. He is the most interesting man in the world. I don't typically commit crime, but when I do, it's bank fraud. Stay greedy, my friends. Support the channel. Join Matthew Cox's Patreon.

I would put the election as the top thing that could. change the results of this and would start a war because the election is very close and I just if you test the water you can tell that people are not in a good place and the transfer of power is the easiest place where things get really bad because it involves one side being willing to give up authority to the other side and when social trust has gotten too low, that's just not going to happen. You can look at like any African country where one tribe has to give power to the other tribe, that's when war starts. And so the Republicans and the Democrats have disputed the results of the last two elections. So that's not going to stop any time soon.

A Democrat senator recently said that recently said that they would try to use the 14th Amendment to throw out the results of the 2024 election of the Republicans won, which is horrifying. and I imagine, I don't know if Trump has said this. I think he probably has that he doesn't trust the results of the election if the left wins. So for both sides, they don't trust the other side to count the votes correctly. And I don't blame them because if you know that the other side already is going to say that you didn't count votes fairly, that means you actually have zero incentive to count votes fairly. Because if you think the other side's going to criticize you either. way, just go for it. And so I don't trust the result of this election either. And so what that

means is that both sides have plausible deniability. And so I don't think we're going to get out of this election without blood. And I have like a friend who, I have multiple friends that study language structure. And they're going to found an interesting company, which is based on using an AI to analyze the word usage in, uh, online to figure out the emotions of the internet at any given time. And they've basically both told me, uh, that the internet's become completely sociopathic in the last year. Uh, and you could throw that evidence out if you'd like, but there's just look, I mean, the way I see things is that once dominoes start to fall in quick succession, then what happens is that you're going to have a conflict.

because let's say you have 15 dominoes. When four of them fall at once, that means they're going to keep falling. If one domino falls and then the next one doesn't, it's not going to happen. And so for most historic conflicts, there's this underlying bubbling brew, and then it gets triggered by some event. So there are 15 places World War I could have started. There were a bunch of places where the last American Civil War could have started. But it happens to be Fort Sumter and Bosnia.

And so we have this underlying brew that means we have to have a war. The question is what's going to start it? The election is so close, I think that has to be it. So that's number one. Number two is a budget issue, where if you look at the English Civil War, the French Revolution, the French crisis in the 1500s, and the French crisis in the Black Death, they're all caused by budget issues. for the historic crises, because there's a computer model that I've been using to predict that America will have the civil war.

With said computer model, the most likely cause of anything is budget issues. And this is something we really need to talk about as a society, but we haven't, is that we have an insane amount of debt, where it took us 250 years to hit the amount of debt we had in 2014, and we've doubled that in the last decade. And so we have more debt than our total GDP now. And it's just, we are at what Greece was before Greece fell apart in the 2000s. And so our debt is just insane. And we spend more money paying off the interest to the debt than the military.

And the U.S. spends more in its military than I would say the next five to ten countries combined. And the interest rates 5% of the total debt. So how do we pay off the other 100%? And it's just, it's not going to happen. And past a certain point, the point, where you get a civil war is where one side is expected to make a concession, and they refuse to make it because it's just too much. It's like a marriage where your wife's mother dies. Your wife's mother is dying, and so you have to give a lot of money for her medical bills, and the husband never liked

his wife's mother anyway, so they get divorced. That's the sort of thing that causes, that causes wars. and so election budget issues is number two, number three, external war. Let's say Iran attacks Israel, and then that becomes a polarized political issue because everything's a polarized. Where you get coffee is polarized and political in America today. It's impossible to not have a polarized political issue. So Iran invades Israel, let's say China attacks Taiwan. One party says we need to go after this.

The other party says, no, we should stay isolationist. War breaks out over that. So election, budget issues, external war. Number four is Black Swan. Black Swan is a random event you can predict. So an example of a black swan starting a war, let's say another kind, another disease comes out of China, and then we have to go into lockdown. And then the right says, no, we're not going to go into lockdown.

or let's say there's a giant, I should have put economic crisis in there. There's a giant stock market crash, and it makes everyone desperate. So those are the kinds of events I think could start a war. I mean, I was going to say the stock market thing is, you know, that's kind of happening right now, right? So, yeah, I mean, it seems like all of those are kind of happening right now, to be honest. Yeah, and the reason I didn't put stock market in is because I think that the stock market crash. I mean, our economy is completely artificial and it can't survive. It's like, it's like

we're running off meth, but we're running out of meth where, I mean, if we cheat money, it works like a drug, and we're just completely dependent on cheap money. So we have to keep pumping more and more in, but we can't. And so, yeah, I mean, I feel the economic issues, I think, are the biggest thing that drives this. And I think our economy is in no way sustainable. So it will blow up, and when it will blow up, I think it'll exacerbate some other variable that'll it will, the collapse of the economy would push the civil war, but there would be another justification. Like, let's say economic crisis immediately after some immigrant from Columbia kills five white girls, and the local judge lets him off. And so you'd have the economic crisis

is the underlying driver, and then you pick some justification for it. Well, you see what's happening right now in the UK. Yes. So that's something that's very important. I think a lot of people should look at where I think the events in the UK are, there's something that we need to be very careful about because in the UK, all of these dominoes are falling at once, where most cities in the UK are having riots. It's the British government is cracking down on it.

And it's just, you can tell that the fabric that is modern Britain is falling apart. And I think Britain is due for their own political. crisis. And so the events we're seeing in Britain now could be America in a week. I have no idea what's going on over there. So the audience may be in a similar book. Okay, yeah. So a bunch of, I believe, so as an immigrant killed a local British white girl. And then the judge let them off with a super light sentence. And then this became. a bunch of race riots between the local British white population who thinks that the government is, and not unfairly, thinks that the government is basically incredibly biased towards

immigrants against the local population and then various immigrant groups. And Britain's a multicultural immigrant nation. And so you see, it's funny to see the Africans and the Muslims and the Indians riding together, because you know in their home countries, they deal each other. And so it's this rioting between the local British white population and the recent immigrants, and the British government has decidedly taken the step in the favor of the immigrants. And so the stuff coming out of Britain, and the best people who cover this stuff is the Lotus Eater's podcast.

They have the best coverage. It's like seven hours on the local British episode where they, uh, where, uh, they. the British government is just being completely Orwellian about it, where they're saying that anyone who, people who riot on the local white British side, they're going to have the full law prosecuted against them, but not the people rioting on the immigrant side. And so it's very much mask off for the British government, where you can tell that it's, it's very biased. And Britain doesn't have freedom of speech. If you say, if you share a racist to meme in Britain, you could go to jail.

That's not a joke. And the British government, it started using AI to monitor the population. And so they have AI cameras, and they're using the AI as a way to, they either have this program or they're installing it now as a way to monitor the population against political dissenters. It's not just the immigrant that killed the girl. It was prior to that. The underlying issue is that they flooded the country with immigrants. and it's kind of like how you hear people screaming like, wait a minute, like thousands of people every day are coming over from Mexico, and we're giving them, like some of them are immediately applying for Social Security Disability, some of they're giving, they're getting food cards, they're getting like you're giving them all of these things, but you've got veterans sleeping on the street that can't get anything.

You've got Americans that are struggling to feed their children that can't get, you know, that can't get food stamps, but you're handing these guys $500 food food. cards you know for to go get food with like what are you doing and so that's been happening for so long it's it's a boiling pot and it gets to a point where anything that happens they're using as an excuses to riot like we want they want to they want to change in any they're using any excuse to just go you know to push that that issue because they're just at that point it's you know you start you know it's the same thing as as as uh actually i think about prison is the same thing as guys stabbing each other because somebody borrowed a magazine and didn't give it back. And next thing you know, they're stabbing each other.

And you're going, over a magazine? You don't understand. I have nothing. So it's not the magazine. It's that I have nothing. And the only thing I had you stole. And so you don't understand the pressure that you're under. And so, you know, it's a horrific situation.

But it's, you know, and it's just like you were saying, that could be us in a week. Right now, it's simmering. but you only need you know you only need that spark to set everything off or that you know so if so assuming so how do you think it if there is a civil war how do you think that happens i mean i know obviously you can't say well in georgia this would have happened but there are some events like the border the supreme court just said yes yes texas is now is it texas or is there a texas is now allowed to where before the okay it used to be that

the federal government is allowed, you know, is allowed to have anything to do with immigration, right? So they're saying, oh, no, we're going to let them in, and then they can register, and then they're allowed to go free in the United States and Rome and get jobs or do whatever they need to do to survive. Well, Texas was saying, no, we're going to stop them from even coming in, and the federal government saying, no, you're not allowed to. We're going to go through our process. Well, the Supreme Court just said that Texas has every right to protect their border. they can't stop them from coming in.

And that was, that's huge. And it's a huge win for states' rights. Because, you know, Texas technically were kind of in the wrong before that by saying, hey, we're putting up borders. We're putting up fences. Federal government's coming in and say, nope, we're taking those down. You know, it was an issue. So I always thought that, I always thought that was going to be like the spark.

Yeah, yeah. I've thought that too. And I think that's still, that's still a reasonable spark to go for because it's such a huge issue. And what really scared me with the Texas border issue is that so within a day, 25 states that they supported Texas, half states in the country, and then 10 states that they'd militarily support Texas. And it's crazy that 10 years ago, imagine telling someone, hey, in 2024, 10 states within a day militarily said they'd fight the federal government. because saying you support Texas means you support Texas against the federal government militarily. And so what that means is it's just

so many dominoes falling at once that it just means that the conflict is and that was a real moment that sunk in with me where I have the Texas border crisis that was last spring. And that day it really sunk into me that we were having a civil war because if it goes that fast,

it means that just the dominoes all aligned. And so my best guess for how it would play out is that the there will split up and become two governments. And both of them would claim to be the rightful American government where I don't think like I don't think we'll have a national divorce. I think instead there will just be the American Patriots government based out of Austin, Texas. in the American People's Government based out of Washington, D.C. So, and I think, the thing with the right versus the left coalition is the right, and this is the thing I'm sure we'll talk about further as the podcast goes on,

is I put an 80 plus percent chance the conservatives win a civil war. Significant majority chance the conservatives beat the left. And one of the big reasons is the conservatives have a single geographically coherent area of territory. the conservatives could control everything from like central pennsylvania out to like the sierra nevada mountains out in california the conservatives have the whole middle of the country and the left operates in a bunch of city states and so even like i'm from pennsylvania even in the northeast or the west coast the left has all these city states that have difficulty unifying so in between san francisco and los angeles or san francisco and portland and seattle and seattle and

is hundreds of miles of red territory in the northeast. The territory between Washington, D.C. and Philadelphia is again red. And so the left has all of these city states that aren't connected to each other. And the right has an advantage. The red areas produce the food, electricity, oil, manufacturing, just almost every single natural resource or necessity you can think of is producing. by the Red Territory. So they could strangle the cities if they wanted to.

So that's one of the biggest reasons why I think the right would win a civil war. But I think you would end up with two, you would have an election issue or a budget issue. And then both governments would say, we are the one true government. We are the people who are the real Americans, the other side are traitors. And then they would form independent legislatures where, and then this is what I say that if you look at these kinds of wars, the radical is almost always. win. And so, let's say you have the left. Left forms, let's say, two different provisional governments, one in San Francisco, one in Washington, D.C. And I think you could have a single

government. I think it's difficult to coordinate across a continent. And then what happens with the Republican governance in Austin and the leftist in San Francisco and Washington, D.C., is that you open up and you split into different. So among the conservatives, a moderate conservative, if you take the left out of the equation is significantly further right than a moderate conservative today. Same thing as a moderate leftist. Imagine just what the politics of America would be like if you just removed the right or the left. For both the red or the blue factions, politics get significantly more radical.

Okay. So what I'm wondering is, and you had said this before, was, well, actually you said this in the video, you said it a minute ago, but you didn't explain exactly why. that you were saying that most of these types of, let's say, revolutions, but let's say civil wars or revolutions, whichever side the military favors is, 90% of the time is the one that is going to win. So here's what, and obviously, so you mean, you can explain that and I'll ask my question, sorry. Yeah, so there's a handful of reasons why I said the right has a significant advantage over the left. It has a larger geographic area. It's geographically central,

It has the resources, most of the men in the military, and especially so, the two most important demographics in the military, the guys with guns and the low to mid-level officers tilt conservative. Then the police across most of the country tilt conservative, gun owners tilt conservative. The left has a culture which dislikes masculinity or discipline or hierarchy, which makes fighting a war difficult. And so for all these reasons, I think the right has a marked military advantage. And so, for example, of the military swaying the outcome, look at the Spanish Civil War.

In the Spanish Civil War, you had a right and the left. The left did most of Spain's geographic territory, but the military went for the right. And so using the old Spanish military based out of Morocco, the right could win that civil war. And I think America is comparable where when pulled the U.S. military tilts right, and it's from people I know in the military, this, amongst, the men with guns who actually fight. This is even more pronounced because the guys in the military who are on the left are mostly back-end logistics people.

Well, if you look at these sorts of conflicts, and this happened in the French Revolution and the Russian Revolution, is that the admirals and the generals, the highest brass of the military were political appointments. In those wars, they served the monarchy. Well, the men follow their colonels and their sergeants and their mid-to-low-level officers because they are identifiable to them. And so that brass of the military is one of the demographics that tilts the hardest right. And so I think that if there's a war, the military goes right and then the right beats the left.

So, well, this, I just thought about this. What was it? Were they called the flower revolutions when the Soviet? No, I'm saying when the Soviet Union broke apart. Yeah. What were those revolution? I know what you're talking about. That's like...

Colored Revolution. Oh, colored. Well, yeah. That's like Georgia, like Georgia and Ukraine and stuff. Yeah. And what was interesting about that was that the... You know, even when Moscow was telling the military to fight the civilians, like they were like, hey, and the military was, just like you said, like they were actually favoring with Moscow.

They're still taking orders and they're being told, like, quash this revolt. get those people out of here, fire on the crowd. Like, they just wouldn't do it. They were, the military was like, they're like, I'm not going to, these are Russians or these are Georgians or these, what are you talking? Like, they wouldn't do. Now, of course, that didn't work in Tiananmen Square. You know, that didn't work in China.

China when they said fire on the crowd, they fired on the crowd, you know. But so I like, so that's kind of like what I see is that if you, they start, basically to your point is like, I absolutely agree. And I think that there's definitely times when you can see. that they're not going to take. I'm not going to take orders if the orders are against my beliefs. These people want the same thing that I think is fair, and you're telling me to fire on them. I'm not going to do that.

You know what I mean? So I can definitely see the military saying, I'm not going to follow your orders. And going, but here's my, what I'm wondering is, you don't think that each state would, each state's, what am I looking for? We have national guards. Each state's national guard would stay with that state. Or you think they would move toward? That's a great question.

So I'm going to use my home state of Pennsylvania as an example of this, because Pennsylvania is one of the most important states in this equation. It's probably the most important swing state. So Pennsylvania, the way it works, the joke is that in Pennsylvania, you've got, you've got Pittsburgh, you've got Philly as city-states, and in-between is Texas. Or they call it Pensultucky. So Pennsylvania, it's technically a swing state, but you've got these deep blue cities and then deep red interior, and then Pennsylvania's vote is determined by suburbs.

I joke that the area I grew up in is the borderland between rednecks and Cairns, because I'm from the Philly Experbs. And so for my entire life, which has not been very long, Pennsylvania has had a conservative legislature, and it's had a Democrat governor. And so these two have kept bumping heads with each other so that no laws have been passed in Pennsylvania over the 24th, or basically nothing of notice happened in the Pennsylvania legislature.

But Pennsylvania does have the third largest national guard in the country, And that tilts very heavily conservative. And so if there's a civil war, what happens is that the Pennsylvania legislature forms an independent government away from the governor Shapiro and then the Pennsylvania National Guard mutinies because it's pulled from Pennsylvania. I can't really see those guys siding with the left, even if the governor of Pennsylvania, who's a Democrat, says we are technically going to, we are technically going to join in the left, the National Guard mutinies.

So I would need to look at, I think red state national guards would go red. I would need to have a lot of research into, like, I have no idea what New York State's National Guard is. It could be pulled from guys from upstate New York. It could be pulled from ethnic minorities inside New York City. I think I could see some blue states keeping their national guards in which, you know, case, there's fighting. And I don't, so one of my catchphrases, I'm betting against God.

And that means I make a lot of bets and I'm going to be wrong because you're playing an impossible game. Right. And so I have like a- There's so many variables. Yeah, exactly. And I have a range of violence where on the easier range of violence, because I think from looking at the historic parallels, I see, we have to see people die. Because we've reached a critical moment in basically the demographics of America.

And I don't mean this, when people talk about demographics, they normally mean racial and ethnic, I mean elite aspirants, where with the computer models that predict this stuff, which is something we should probably get to, we have hit critical mass, people, inequality has gotten bad enough that lots of people are competing for a small amount of good jobs. And so with that going on, what happens is that you have all these demographics of young agitated people. with nothing to do except die. And they aren't going to get a good life no matter what they do. And so they might as well just just die in a war. And the thing is, even if you get a good job, it's so everything. Exactly. Like the middle class is, the middle class is struggling, so shrinking and struggling.

Yeah, exactly. It's absurd. Every time you go to a grocery store, you walk out going. The fuck just happened. I feel like I got wrong. Yeah, I'm glad you said that. It's annoying as hell. But, no, yeah, you're totally right.

And, like, everyone from my high school or college, I don't know anyone who's doing great. Because even if you get, like, your dream job working in Hollywood or whatever, like, it's still not paying enough for Los Angeles. Right. Or if you're working on Wall Street, still not paying enough for New York City. Even if you get your dream job, you still fail. And it's just horrifying. And so, I mean, what I've said before is I think that the Trump assassination is, it's indicative of what the future is going to be because there are lots of people who are desperate enough to kid, who don't have enough going on in their lives that they would happily die to kill their least favorite political figure. And so I, and growing up, I would hear the Taliban having bombers, and I thought that was absolutely insane.

But just look at the guy who lit himself on fire in New York City. This was like six months ago. The guy who... I remember that it was outside the trial, right? Yeah, yeah. This is such a good story, too, because... It was only a few months ago. I don't know, man.

Time doesn't exist anymore. Okay. Maybe it was six months. So... Yeah, so that video has been completely scrubbed from the internet. And Google's doing an insane amount of shadow banning. So I can't find that video anywhere. There was the video of the Columbia protests.

You can't find that anywhere. That had millions of views. If you look up, was Trump assassinated? Nothing comes up now for the first page of results. I think my channel is being shadow banned. And so it's just the system's being rigged more than people think the internet is being used for political purposes. So we were talking about this. We were talking about people getting themselves.

We were talking about, oh, yeah, different states in the civil war. Right. On the government, the, the national guards go in. Yeah. Yeah. How does that work? Oh, yeah. So there's a range of violence between people basically have to die. There are too many desperate young people who will fight to the end. And so on the less bloody side is just the right wins to civil war. Or alternately, the left wins the civil war, which is like my 15 to 20 percent of options. One side wins the civil war, purges the other side, takes over the country. The most violent option. And you know, people almost, people tend to overest how but underestimate how bloody wars are so for world war one the american civil war world war two people thought they'd be much easier wars than they were on the bloodier side of options is like this is a four year or a five year war between red and blue states where just cities are burned down and there are huge battles where like tens of thousands of people die you have that whole range of options and i don't know which one is going to happen and so if if one side the way the right the right wins is that the military there's some issue the military sides with them and then the right

militarily occupies blue cities the way the left wins is that the left can bait the right into launching a stupid revolt that makes so thankfully the u.s military is loyal to the law and the constitution so if the right does something completely unhinged that's just not legally justifiable the military would crush them and then the left could use this as a rationalization to do Orwellian crackdowns on the right. And so that's the only option I see the left winning. Okay. I mean, I have a question.

As far as you say the right would take control of the military, like how does that work? Like I guess I'm assuming people who are in like a part of the federal military, they're in bases across. How do they choose a side? Just like the entire like federal military just like, oh, we're going to be on the conservative side or they, how does that like physically or logistically? That's a great question, and what you see normally historically, and I'm going to use Romania as an example, where in Romania, Romania had, Romania was to Europe, what North Korea is to Asia. They were the worst of the communist countries for like the second half of the Cold War. And there was a point where Romania, they could have held on to power in the same way that the commies did, communists did in North Korea. And what happened was that the dictator of Romania was giving a speech, and then someone started to boo him.

And then the whole crowd, there was this change over a second, and the whole crowd started to boo the president. And then that one change of moment, it changed the entire calculation. So you get snap moments like that. Or in the Russian Revolution, the thing that sparked it was that Russia was losing World War I to the Germans. And then what happened is that the army was told to fire on a group of protesters in St. Petersburg, and they refused to do it. And so there's often a moment like that. And then in that moment, people figure out, wait, we can get away with this. And people are, we're social creatures, we're based off consensus and conformity.

So once there's a moment where people realize, wait, I can join this other side without just dying. You can see people make the decisions. And my best guess is that the local commanders of different bases make the decision. where, let's say, you're in Fort Leavenworth in Kansas, and then you hear that there was a major historic moment where you have the choice on whether or not the side of the right or the left, and then the local commander, he's hearing murmurs from his soldiers one direction or another, and he said, yeah, this garrison is going to side with, let's say, the right. So that's my best guess that if the, I think the upper brass in the military,

at this point is they it's a I need to look at the demographics of myself it's a lot of political appointments it's either a general makes the decision and the soldiers go along with it or it's local commanders or it's the men just their commanders and elect a leader so it's a variety of options they could always move out of those bay if those bases are unsafe yeah yeah i think part of that question was like is is that um is that they move to a closest to a stronghold near to another state that has, is surrounded by other like-minded, you know, states. Because if you're isolated, you don't want to, you know, we're holding out, you know, everybody around us is, is hostile to us.

And we're surrounded by other bases that are going, that are also hostile. Like, we want to probably leave this, because you're still trying to figure out, are we, as we're putting together an entire army, about an entire campaign to move against these other states? You know, like they have to figure out what their strategy is. Are we going to go state by state or are we going to go straight for Washington or we, you know, they have to figure that out, but they need to consolidate. So you have to kind of start moving.

The great thing about the U.S. military is that it's not all militaries are like this is that, you know, it's very mobile. Like it's very, there's a lot of these, when you talk about these other countries that, you know, oh, well, China invaded the U.S., China didn't have the capability. They just can't up and move their military. the U.S. has the ability to up and move massive amounts of men and equipment. Other militaries don't. They're really built to say, hey, we want to keep from being invaded. They're not really, you know, otherwise Taiwan would be done right now.

You know, if they had an overwhelming capacity to be able to. Well, there's other aspects, I know. But, like, they're never invading us. Like, we were never in the Cold War, even though Ronald Reagan and all these guys love to say, you know, they love to scare everybody about the possible invasion of the, of the communists, that was never possible. Like, they were never going to be able to get. We're not, we're not France and England.

We're not separated by a small channel. Like, you have to move your entire portion, huge portion of your military here. You're not getting here. There are three historic examples I want to bring up, illustrate at this point, where the first is that for almost every single war, the English-speaking world does. People are completely disorganized for the first six months. So American Civil War, American Revolution,

America and both world wars, English Civil War, for all of those conflicts, everyone involved were, or the English speakers weren't ready for the war. So first like six months of the American Civil War is people just getting their men together because no one's organized. Same thing as all those other wars I illustrated. So I think that's going to happen. I think the difference, though, is that America does have, we do have the best military on Earth, and it's pretty big.

So there would be a lot of ability for fighting potent in the beginning, but I think both sides would go back conscripting young men for a bunch of months to build up their forces. Secondly, the fall of the Soviet Union's interesting example, where the Soviet Union was this huge empire. They had the largest military in the world, I believe, or they had a very powerful military. They had been cracking down on dissent for decades. They had been absolutely brutal. And then when the time hit, their entire system just collapsed overnight, basically. So that shows it very, very recently, because it's only like 30 years ago, these sorts of things can happen.

It can happen on a dime. And then the third thing I want to pull up is India, Pakistan, where, again, that's also within living memory. And India, Pakistan is, there was this huge reassortment because beforehand, India had been British, before that it had been this big Islamic empire. So you had all of these Muslims and Hindus and Sikhs and whatever, just living together in this splotch and these complicated webs, then India-Pakistan happens, then there's mass migration into either Pakistan or India, depending on whether you're Hindu or Muslim.

And I could see if there's a civil war that lasts long enough, like blue people fleeing to California or red people fleeing to Texas. And it's as you say. You kind of see it now, though. exactly you see it now sorry i mean that's a great example i wasn't i i didn't know the example obviously um but yeah that's a great example and you see it all the time we're constantly like how many how many you know hundreds of thousands of people are moving into florida every single year and fleeing california you know although obviously there are also people going to california in those

states too but the for the most part they're it's shifting and i was um i was going to say another thing i think people they don't because i've talked to people about this right because Only one of the things sparked it was the movie Civil War. Yeah, yeah. Which was funny because it was, you just don't know. If you watch the Civil War, you just don't know. Like the two, they picked these two, they pick, um, they pick Texas and California going against Washington. It's like, that would never happen.

Like, what are you talking about? But it was great because you don't, you know there's a Civil War, but you don't really know what the politics are behind it. And you don't, like, I would have loved to have known those types of things, but you just don't. So you're just kind of watching, I think it could have been better or more interesting, but it probably would have been too close to home. So, but what I was going to say is I've talked to people and people are like, that's not going to happen. That's not going to happen. You know, oh, there's not, Americans won't fire on each other. Americans won't.

I'm like, well, one, they will. And two, you're not talking about one or two guys. When people are in mass, yes, you know, you very quickly lose your identity. And it's just like people shooting at police officers. They're not really shooting at this guy. It's the representation of the oppression or the force or the... Yes. So you can have a large group of people and where somebody on his own against one other person

would never throw a bottle or fire a gun in anger. But when you're masked with 100, 400 other people, people start shooting very quickly. They lose their anonymity, right? Or they become, they have anonymity. They become that kind of group, that mob mentality. And people will be absolutely vicious when they've got people backing them up. That's a good. No worries.

You said your point. That's a good point. And I can see that you have a, that's something that you would come to having a true crime background that most people don't. But I'd imagine with your job, you see nasty parts of the human condition that people like to hide. And the thing with that, and I've been on like over a dozen podcasts at the Civil War. So at this point, I have like a pre-programmed format of replies to various retorts because vast majority of those podcasts are people who don't think it's going to happen. So I come in to debate the topic.

And the biggest point I get consistently is it doesn't feel right, where I just can't emotionally – this is one of the annoying things at the debate is that for 90% of the debates I go on at this topic, the ultimate point I reach is the other side saying, yeah, that just doesn't feel right. I can't emotionally bring myself to believe in. And, and I can see why people think that, but the story of history, I like to say, the world is not a reasonable place, and expecting the world to be reasonable is unreasonable. And so very, very scary things happen over history a lot of the time. And I frankly think a large part of the population wants to kill people.

If you go through leftist streamers on Vouch has said the left needs Vouch is one of the biggest leftist streamers. He hates me. He's made over 12 hours of content trying to debunk me. I don't know who that is. Yeah. I'll look into him.

He's a he's had a downward track. He was one of the biggest leftist streamers. And then he was caught having animate on his computer. And he was also caught. He's also publicly said, multiple times he wants to get, like, uh, he wants to have a, uh, he wants to have a, uh, him. Um, so that killed his reputation. Uh, and, and so he, he has said the leftists need to buy guns, uh, to fight against the right. Uh, Hassan says it's okay to, Hassan's the biggest leftist

streamer, his catphrases, punch a Nazi. Destiny has publicly said that it's okay to Trump supporters. These are the biggest leftists. I spend a lot of time on right-wing Twitter. And I put out messages, like saying, like, like, a human people, I sometimes just send messages to test the waters, and I'll say, like, committing genocide is bad. Or, like, I'll say things like human rights are important sometimes. And then the replies are, you're a cuck. And so it's just vociferous replies for, we should be allowed to kill people. And that's, like, it's controversial to go against that. So for both sides, and again, I am talking about small.

groups of radicals here where this is one of the biggest retorts I get when I bring up this argument is most people just want to grill and have their kids and go shopping. And that's true. But most people's opinions don't matter in these wars. What happens in these wars is small groups of often sociopaths organize and they drag everyone with them. So in the Russian Civil War, the communists were less than 3% of Russia's population. The Bolsheviks who won were a minority of that.

French Revolution, the Jacobins in the radical leftists to one were only a handful of percentages of the population. And the Jacobins were such a small faction that you could study the French Revolution based off what cafes the different factions of leftists went to. The factions of the people involved in the French Revolution were so small that you could say this faction of radical leftists goes to cafes on this street. This faction of radical leftists goes to cafes on this street. That's how it was organized. And so it's often these very small demographics of people where in the English Civil War, as an example, England was split between the old nobility in the west of the country and the east of the country were the parliamentary religious fundamentalist.

It was a weird time period where like the new capitalist city people were also religious fundamentalists. So they were the two factions. And it was a common belief at the time that the English had grown. and two weeks to fight is it been in 150 years since England's last major war. So people said the English are too soft to fight. What happened was that both of these political radicals, they would just conscript young men and they just get guys off the bar floor and then make them march and rank.

And so in these sorts of conflicts, and this is one of the things I've said in all of the podcast, and they really love it as a point, is that no one writes for normies, no one makes a, No one makes like a demonstration for normies. No one makes normie advocacy groups. Normal people, they don't do stuff. They're too busy living their lives. And these radicals who do care enough, they have skin in the game. They are the ones who propel this.

And they have outsized political advantages because they're the people who organize and they're willing to take risks. I was going to say you say the same thing for the Nazi party. It was a very tiny little. And they were, they elected, they were elected once they got in. to, I forget what they call it, Parliament or whatever, their system, they started just conscripting, or I call it conscripting, but taking over the other parties, like saying come with us on, we'll vote with you on this issue, and you guys come with, the next thing you know, it keeps growing, because they're kind of gobbling up these other smaller parties because

they had momentum and then a following, you know, obviously, and they're gobbling them up and gobbling them up and then they win, then the next election, it's more people, and they keep gobbling it up and gobble it. And then the way they, one of the ways they did that, even though Hitler was never elected, you know, he was, he was appointed. But the way he did it was, and they didn't have social media back then, he's flying around the country or any, any place he went to, he geared his speeches to whoever he was talking to. So I'm on your side. I'm just like you. And now he kind of gobbles up that group of people and this. And now they just grow and grow. Because the truth is, even if he had opposite points of view for different people,

you don't know it. There's no internet. So this 400 people have no idea that he just said something radically different to these 5,000 people. They have no clue. So now they're with him and they're with him and everybody's behind him. And now next thing you know, they're running an entire country. And that's pop. That's very possible, especially with social media, because you think even now, We think we're getting the right information. You think you know what this person's stance is. But the truth is, you're getting one version of that person, and you may be getting this other group may be getting another version of that person.

Yeah. I have two things I want to say here. The first is that this example of small groups of radicals controlling politics, it already happens today because woke people and wokeness is like it's, um, yeah, it's 10% of America's population at most. That 10%, so America's one-third right, one-third left, one-third politically non-affiliated. And the studies of those people, what we've found through looking at various metrics is they're not enlightened centrists. They just don't care. They're like people who like watching reality TV and they have a family and that stuff. And so the left is one-third

of the country and only a third of that are woke people. The rest are moderates who get pulled along by them. But woke people, they control the movies we watch, DEI, Black Rock, and finance, a lot of the executive branch, the government, the laws, and a lot of the West. So this tiny 10% of the population dictates the social policy for the world. And that's a great example of how small groups of radicals can control everything. And so I have like siblings and family members who are radical left. And they're like, they're like basically Maoists.

And it's crazy that people who I grew up with, who are of my family, we had the same environment, same place, and we could end up so politically different because you end up in different ecosystems where you're just fed wildly different information. And it's like, sometimes I go on, I don't really use Instagram. Sometimes I do. And I'm always shocked at how different my feed on Instagram is, then. YouTube where just I see other people's content feeds and I'm like how could you possibly watch this but then this is a bigger percentage of the population than your feed yeah I do have

question I can always feel when Colby had Colby's Jones into ask something I can feel it because I actually wrote this down I was going to ask again but since you brought it up um and you may have kind of covered your main point but I was going to ask you um what are your thoughts on like the media's influence on the public like shadow banning yeah has there has it happened like something in the past like yeah yeah is there any correlation kind of like you know i think like north korea like they're off like they don't even know what's happening yeah on the outside world like is there any other i guess how detrimental to society is a censoring information to the public would be the question this is something danny asked me yesterday too um where i uh i'm going to be

less means to YouTube than a lot of people in my niche, where I have a pretty good relationship with YouTube. They monetize all my videos now. They've been very nice to me lately, but there are multiple bureaucracies going on here. So some part of YouTube likes me. Another part I think is shadow, because another part of Google or their mother company is shadow abandoning me, or at least that's what I've gathered, because I know what algorithms for videos look like. And once you hit a certain range you should keep growing and then just stops and that's been happening for as long i don't know how long it's been happening but it got a lot worse once the debate started between biden and uh trump where once the debate started my the the algorithm position got worse and do you guys remember

richmond north of richmond yeah yeah i went we went to his concert oh okay i went to a concert i bring it up in a lot of i bring you up in most podcasts and like uh only about half the know about it. But that song got 70 million views overnight. And I think the Google and those people, if they weren't shadow banning this, they would be a viral conservative hit twice a week because it's where the public sentiment is. And so the problem is that if there's a viral conservative hit twice a week is it's the exact kind of sentiments change that killed the Soviets, It's the communists in Romania. Once people realize that other people don't support the regime, that's what terrifies the regime.

And so I know other conservative content creators. Google's, YouTube's been pretty good for monetizing conservatives lately, I think, due to the competition with Twitter. But they're definitely shadow banning content. And all the other conservative creators I know are also being shadow banned. And so do you guys know what the advertising guild? So there's this advertising alliance that controls 90% of advertising dollars. And it exists to keep conservatives from getting advertising money. And this is something where I have friends who work at advertising at big tech companies,

and they're like, yeah, this stuff is real. And so there is, and look at BlackRock, too, where BlackRock is this giant finance firm that does stuff for DEI hiring, where they all, most of their investments are based off political alliances. And it's stuff like, I mean, that's what ESG is. And it's stuff, there's loads of stuff today that sounds like it was some corrupt practice 400 years ago. And this is one of it where 400 years ago, the King of England, he would give out money to his political buddies. And so the government would give these monopolies and these contracts to political buddies. And that's where we're at now, where all these advertising firms, these finance

firms, they're giving out money to allies of the left. And it makes complete sense strategically. It's just something you'd hear about in the Congo. It's not something that should be happening in a first world country. And so I think, and I hate to insults the company that pays my bills, but I'll be quick. I know you guys could destroy my life overnight. But YouTube is more like a, YouTube is more like Peru and it's less like Mao, where YouTube can be autocratic and authoritarian, but it's very schizophrenic in doing so. where I've made videos talking at the coming American Civil War, the Nazis, whether race is real, whether women and men and women are the same.

Those videos all get monetized. The two videos, the three videos that YouTube took down are American regional cultures, Southeast Asian anthropology, and the InCell Revolution. So when you say took down, you mean... YouTube wiped them out. And so I had to repost them. And the InCell Revolution, there is this guy named Sigmund Erlich, who I used a... I used a video, I used a four-second blurry image of his gun range, and he panicked, and he took the video down for copyright strike reasons.

We spoke. He's cool. He let us put the video back up with an understanding that we edited out the segment that he, we edited out the segment that his little gun range was used. But other two, American regional cultures and Southeast Asian anthropology, those don't make sense. I think there's, for my impression of YouTube, it's this giant bureaucratory. that pushes weird special interests that are in the interests of the bureaucracy itself. But, like, I don't know, there might be someone who's from Southeast Asia at Google who got

triggered by that. My guess would be something like that. When YouTube tries to do censorship, it's not like Stalin or it's just complete authoritarian. We're going to push you down. It's more so there are certain topics we don't like. And YouTube goes through these rhythmic cycles between being really cool and being open to lots of content and also being oppressive, where there was the ElsaGate scandal where people were posting basically pseudo-of Disney characters, where it wasn't, it was pretty close.

It was weirdly sexual content of Disney characters. And so people realized this, and then YouTube went through this big demonetization because the sponsors got scared. So there's a lot of stuff like that. I think that the manipulation of information by big. Big tech is going to end up being significantly worse than anyone today knows. And the reason I say that is because there's no incentive for them to not do it. And if someone can be evil, they're probably going to be.

And so they have every reason to do it. They're probably getting a lot of money to do so. There's no laws against it. There's no oversight. And so I think, yeah, I mean, I think that it's not like communist levels, but there is a lot of manipulation going on. and I think it's on a very subliminal basis where we I've read a couple really brilliant books in this topic where our elite doesn't like using physical force they're not the kinds of people who are for that where if you look at our elite they're not the kind of people who like the Soviets they just want to drive tanks over their enemies our elite controls the people through manipulating them psychologically and it stems originally from advertising where the propagandists of World War I founded the advertising industry.

So it's the same set, the same group of people. And I have a lot of friends in advertising. I get my money off advertising. I don't want to slender you guys so much that I don't get paid. But it's our society subliminally manipulates people so that to follow the agendas they want. And it's this very, this is the thing I've been meaning to make a video about for the longest time. I just don't know how to research it. I don't know where the books are or whatever.

where school, the media, the government, all of these things push these shared narratives. They're just objectively wrong, and most people follow along with what the psychological manipulation is without thinking about it. So here's, you keep saying that your channel is a conservative channel, but like all, none of the videos that I have watched seem, they don't, they just seem to be, you know, know, it just seems like you're analyzing facts and giving, and just, you're not even really necessarily giving your opinion. You're just saying, this is what this says, this is what this is, this is what, like I've read

four books. I saw one the other day where you talk in the video and you said, we did a poll on what subject the viewers wanted to see, and then you listed those, and you said overwhelmingly it was like on, let's say, the economy. Yeah, yeah. You said, however, I have to read five about, I have to read about five books before I'm able to do that. And I thought, this fucking dude's going to read.

Have you ever seen an, an economy book? Like, they're going to read five books to do a video? I don't want to watch a 20-minute, a YouTube video before somebody shows up here. I would, but I'm sorry, but so I was going to say is that you don't seem to ever lean one way or the other. And just like I actually mentioned this beforehand, was that one of the videos, because you've got several on, on, on civil civil wars, but yeah, one of them, it just happened to come up because I've been watching some of your stuff. And one of them came up and it said, what would have happened had the South, you know, won the Civil War.

And I thought, ooh, that sounds good. So I thought, I'm going to watch that. Thinking to myself, superpower, all this stuff. And then over the course of the next 30, 45, or 30 or 40 minutes, I was just like overwhelmingly just depressed because it was like, it doesn't do well. Like they were, and you give all the reasons why, you know, it would take them, you know, whatever, 10 years to 15 years to get over the economical situation. They put themselves in as a result of the war. The, the North, who wasn't harmed economically, there was actually a boom.

They continued to industrialize. You know, there's all these reasons why the South doesn't expect. And at the rate, you know, that I not having read anything, thought. And, of course, because they would keep slavery, they have no reason to innovate. They have no reason to industrialize it. Yeah. All these incentives are gone. And I had never thought about it like that.

And so over the course of the next 30 minutes or so, I'm just completely depressed the hell out of me because I thought they would, there would be this economic boom. And of course, there's not an economic boon. And you give the reasons why. And I don't, I didn't feel that was like all of the reasons you give. you give the reasons you give the research you it seems like you you don't seem to lean one way or the other so why are you saying that your channel is conservative so first of all thank you and you have this is one of my closest friends dave hamilton he's from dallas and when the first time we met he said the same thing and he was an old school he was part of the civil rights movement and he

likes to say that uh he was part of the civil rights movement he was a leftist in the 60s and he's he's in his 60s and then now he's been he's no longer part of the left because the left moved so much further left and I think in a sane rational society I would not be politicized I would just be saying what I believe is true but we are not in a sane rational society we are an nihilistic suicidally delusional society um and so I'm in the box that people put me in because that's how the world works you exist in the categories people tell you to go into And, yeah, I mean, what's that quote? In an insane society, the sane man is insane.

And so I think that's where we're at now. And, yeah, so different parts of America go through phases of doing well where in, like, the industrial age, the part of the country, I'm from Pennsylvania, the Rust Belt did very well. The South did very well, starting in the 60s. once the South made a couple different reforms and with air conditioning and once the North got too expensive. So you can look at different parts of America that did well for certain region

and certain parts of history. And so the period after the American Civil War was the era when industry did the best. So I think the old... Actually, fun fact, I grew up in the Mason-Dixon line. So my house was in Pennsylvania. The school bus stop was in Delaware. So I grew up right on the line

between the slave and the free states. and yeah I mean we live in a crazy world and there's not really you can't be anything like you you have to be political today if I say the sky is blue the other side I'll say the sky's purple right um yeah it's at the um it's funny the air conditioning thing yeah that I've been saying since I was since I was in my teens I've been like I couldn't live here without like I don't know what these people were doing before air conditioning like I couldn't you couldn't you know no and you actually mentioned in that video, you talk about air conditioning and how it made the South more habitable. Yeah. And I was thinking, oh, absolutely. Like, it's, it gets insanely high. Jess will come in,

my wife. Yeah. She'll come in and she's been outside. She works on yachts and she'll have been outside all day working on stuff on some yacht. And she'll come in and she'll be like, my God, it's over 105 degrees. It's this and that. And I'm like, is it? Like, I've never left. I never left the house. Yeah. Is your family from the South originally? Yeah. Well, yeah, my, yeah, no, no, my mom was born in, in Jacksonville, definitely. And my dad was born in Social Circle, Georgia, which is this little time. It's, it's, it's, it's in Georgia. Okay. Yeah. Never find it. So your parents, your parents know what it was like before AC. God, I never thought about that. That's horrible. Yeah. So, uh, Pennsylvania is like the furthest.

It gets to be 90 degrees. It's like 90 to 100 degrees in the summer in Pennsylvania. And so as a kid, I would bike 20 miles a day. And when I moved to Texas, I live in Texas now, I just look outside. And I'm like, if I try what I did growing up in Pennsylvania, I would die here. And so, I mean, another factor is just the Rust Belt became insanely idiotic. Like, as a Pennsylvanian, we deserve what we got. where, like, Philadelphia became a hered, basically a hereditary monarchy, where the electricians union, which is passed on from father to son, they run the city, and they have thugs beat up their political opponents, and they have these giant corrupt contracts where, where if, so if you, if you want to build a bridge, then the electricians union gives it to their buddies, they charge twice the fee, they pocket the money.

And so Philly has become incredibly corrupt, incredibly. Philly used to be, it was one of the top three richest cities in the world at some point. It was Pennsylvania was the state with the highest industrial power and the second richest state in the country for like a century. And then it just became really, once they started electing socialist governments in the 50s and the 60s, all of the industry moved south because it just wasn't sustainable to do it in Pennsylvania. And so it's this combination. The South got rid of Jim Crow, which created a more open labor market. The South started looking to modernize, starting in the 60s. The South made very pro-business policies, air conditioning kicked in, and the Rust Belt, and the North just became silly.

It's a confluence of a bunch of things. So my, I guess, back on the Civil War topic is that if there is a Civil War, Which, I know you're, you're gung-ho, that's definitely happening. It sure, listen, it looks like it. Yeah. So if it does happen and one side or the other, well, so if, if, if, obviously, if the, you know, if the union side, which I don't know what you'd call it. What did you call it? You mean, so our current Civil War, we can just call them right and left.

Okay. I mean, there's not, there's not a good parallel between the union. I'm sorry to cut you off, but there's not a good parallel between. between the Union and the Confederacy and this, because, like, my dad's side of the family were Irish Catholics. They went from being Democrats in the 60s because all Irish people were Democrats. They became Republicans because they were Catholic and they didn't like the Democratic Party stopped being Christian.

And then my mom's side, they were English Americans from Nebraska. They were hardcore Republicans. They became Democrats because they were more educated and they worked as professors and stuff. And so both of the parties swapped. And so it's hard for me to draw a parallel between, like from Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania or Ohio, they went from being the union to like the right side. And so, yeah, just the right of the left. What were you going to say? Well, I was going to say if there is a civil war and the left, like, does it become two different countries or do you believe that one country simply absorbs the other country?

And it's just like a shift of the government, like, okay, we're going to go through and we're going to ask the other guys to leave, which probably they would more likely line them up and just execute them. But anyway, I don't think there will be a secession because the regional cultural differences between red and blue state America aren't high enough. Where for the South, like the genetic difference has been British Americans of northern and southern ancestry are large enough. They could be, you could like claim, if we were in Europe, you could claim their different ethnicities. Like the Dutch or the Germans, they're like the same people. Right. Or the Swiss or the Germans. The same people that happened to have different countries.

I think if the South got independence, I would probably argue that Southerners could claim. I would, if the South was an independent country, I would argue that Southerners were a different ethnicity from northerners. The South could make an argument for that. That's not true for the right or the left. There's not those inherent, like, centuries-old cultural differences. and both countries, in my opinion, would claim to be the one true American government. And then what would happen is the right wins, and then the right wipes out or shoots the old elite, the old leftist delete, and then they put the capital either in Austin, Texas,

or Washington, D.C., depending on do we want to have a capital in sympathetic territory or in non-sipathetic territory? And so I think both would claim to be the one true government, and the question I would have is, the question I would have from that is how many governments, you could have a complete collapse situation where just America spirals and a warlords. I don't find that to be likely. We're too functional a country for that. I don't think Ohio will be run by the warlord of Toledo. And I don't think Florida will be run by the warlord of Gainesville. But, but, yeah, I think it of different governments.

My question, though, is how many governments does the left have? Because the left is based out of city states. And so I could see them having all these, like, self-governing communist city states. Because that's kind of like how they, that's kind of how they want to do it. Remember Chas, capital, it's the Seattle Rebel Group. This was back during COVID. This is a fun story where in COVID, downtown Seattle seceded as an independent country, technically. They said, we are the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone.

And within 12 hours, they ran out of food because the homeless guys stole it. And they became a dictatorship run by a SoundCloud rapper. It's more horrible than any conservative propaganda's parody of it. So that's what happened where they became all of these. It's crazy that the left can legitimately rebel and try to form an independent country. And it's not a national story. This was back during the summer of love. and that happened in a bunch of leftist cities

and so they formed these like anarchist communist self-governing city-state compounds but the problem is that's like a horrible system of governance you get militarily I mean they didn't have food they didn't have weapons it wasn't poorly organized it's a lot of larping and this is why I think the left will lose the Columbia protests are such a good story here where how much do you guys know at the Columbia protests

zero oh okay cool so these were Columbia New York City not Columbia South America it's a university and this was one of the scariest videos I watched and it had millions of views it's been scrubbed from the internet which is insane but it was all these like um kids who go to Columbia University like kids my age like wealthy wealthy kids who are supposed to be part of the elite and they were marching it they secured this sacred space around the Columbia campus where you weren't allowed to enter if you weren't a communist. And so they had all these rules, like, in our autonomous state, it was the lamest stuff ever.

You're not allowed to drink. You're not allowed to do drugs. You're not allowed to hook up. If I had an autonomous state, it would be free booze. Just saying. But so they had that going on, and they were walking in ranks, chanting words together. And it was all about the Israel conflict. So they were saying stuff like from the river to the sea into Fado.

And I know what these kids grew up with. They had like seven years of Holocaust programming, and they immediately broke the Holocaust programming to let's the Jews within like a couple years of leaving childhood. And so that was crazy to see. And they were openly saying, and they were saying the right wants genocide, and that's projection, because most of the stuff the left says is projection. They say the right wants genocide. We must destroy the imperial core. We must destroy the capital of the American Empire. You must always have the revolution in your heart.

We are revolutionaries at heart. And it was crazy to watch because the left has been 60 years trying to claim they're not communists. And then watching that, it's just like, you guys threw away all credibility. You're not communists. And it was these kids chanting together, which is just, it looks exactly like a cult. And I know that if you interview them, these people would, zoomers and young people, they joke everything as a cult. They're like, oh, my God, going to church as a cult, hanging out with your friends as a cult. then you join a legit cult and so it's funny to watch and i watched this horrifying video of this

uh i think it was a girl uh this young black girl who was talking into her camera she goes to columb she went to columbia university and she said you know i'm not a violent person but if a zionist were to get in my way i couldn't stop myself from hurting them and i'm thinking to myself what you mean zionist you mean like joe schwartz whose family moved here from ukraine in 1890 like She's basically saying, if I run to a Jewish person on the street, I will beat them up. And that's just, and these keep in mind, these are kids who are supposed to be our future ruling class. People will go to those elite universities are supposed to run our country. They're supposed to run the companies.

And these people are openly talking about the Jews and violently beating up people in the street. So this was a question I was going to say to the end, but I think that's a good point. So why do you think that the 10% of the woe, you know, community or whatever, is in positions of power or decision-making. Yes, that's a good question. And what I would say is that the left is, and the video I just made is the anthropology of the left. So that video is going to go out next week.

I've recorded it, edited it, et cetera. And the left is the party of bureaucracy where the left exists to push the interests of the college educated in the bureaucracy. The problem is that we're a society run by the bureaucracy. Every single thing, whether religion, government, business, universities are all bureaucracies. So what happens when the bureaucracies run society is the people who champion the interests of the bureaucracy are the people who get authority. And so the people in these positions of power, wokeness is a convenient ideology for them to push

their power forever. And the reasoning for that is that wokeness creates rationalizations for infinite bureaucratic growth. So they pick issues that can never be solved, like, and if they could solve them, they don't want to, like Third World's Poverty, the hysteria of Cairns, the Black ghetto communities, climate change. The thing is, those are all huge intractable issues that you can't really solve. And so you can ask for infinite funding forever for your bureaucracy. And if you do have solutions, like if you just said, hey, if you guys really care about climate change, let's just switch America over to nuclear power. They don't want to take it because that just solves the problem

so that their agency or their bureaucracy can't get infinite funding forever. I was going to say, then they have the whole thing about how horrible nuclear power is when the truth is that's not true at all. It's extremely safe. It's extremely cheap. Yeah. You know, and that there's been one or two issues and more people have died in coal mines would ever or have ever died of a nuclear power.

Like, it just doesn't make sense. And like most like the, most of the experts for the non-politically motivated experts, say if you want to fix like black ghetto communities like where I grew up in Philly or Camden, New Jersey, you increase, you make charter schools, you make trade schools, and you increase policing. The left would never push for those alternatives because the kinds of people you're hiring there are not leftists. The guys who would work at the trade schools, the charter schools, they'd be like working class guys and the police, they're not. college-educated. So every single thing left has to push for has to give a college-educated person a job. Well, and it would cause, it would, it would solve the problem. You really want to, it's like, it's like all the money that goes to the homeless problem in California goes to these groups that that do nothing and only really create more and more homeless and you're dumping all this money,

but they don't really want to solve the problem. Exactly. And the problem with all these woke bureaucratic organizations is that they're not run by people who have the best interests of the organizations in mind. So for Disney, the people who would really do well for Disney are creatives. They should be hiring like really smart people who write good stories and can make good movies. Instead, it's this managerial bureaucratic bloat of these paper pushers who are like, hey, we need to make 10 movies that make this amount of money to cover our budget. So we're going to make friggin' Pirates of the Caribbean 56.

Because we can predict a certain range of income off that. But if you make a good, genuine movie, there's a risk there. And so the people who take the risks and make the great movies that makes a brand like Disney still popular, they're not the ones in charge. The people in charge of the universities, back when the universities were founded, when they were great, they were democracies of the professors. In the Middle Ages, or pretty recently, all the professors ran the university together. And that makes sense because they're the people who teach. Now with this managerial bureaucratic bloat who say, professor, you have to teach this class in this exact way, and it stifles the creativity of the organization.

In corporate America, it's not the first generation of CEOs. I have a friend who's a politician, and when he was raising money, he said, the first generation of CEOs were always very open-minded, interesting people who were open to doing cool stuff. After that, once the company goes public, the manager of the company is always this like bureaucratic, very like anal, very, like just risk-averse person. And so all of these managerial paper pusher boring people have taken over all of the organizations. And they don't care about whether or not the organization survives.

They just want to keep the, they just want to keep having the bureaucratic bloat grow. The idea of letting immigrants in and giving all these programs and, and elevating all of these, you know, these people to positions of power, it feels good, you know. And so they do it. And what I, the problem is the moment you, you do that is that you put people in a position of power, that you think they'll continue to treat you fairly because you treated them overwhelmingly fairly. But the truth is the moment they're in power,

they don't treat you as fairly as you treated them. Yes. And then it's too late. It's all people who have no concept at how bad the world can get. Where it's people... It's like all Americans just don't. They don't realize.

Like, they've just never seen it bad. And this is one of the things that I've lived outside America for a certain amount of time. And so when you live in Mexico or Thailand, or like those countries, kids play in the street. Like if you're in Egypt, kids are out playing in traffic. No one cares. The kids survive.

People are just out in the street playing chess or joking or it's a society that doesn't have all the Karenism that's destroying America. Where if you throw a block party, your neighbors will call the police. And so Americans are, we're simultaneously very risk averse in stupid ways, but also we have no idea about how horrible things can get. And so, like, whenever I look at these elite types, what I see is people who are trying to get through a short period of time by making insane shortcuts where they're like, we're going to elevate these hyper-leftists into power, but they have no concept of, A, how insane the people they're elevating into power are,

and B, how strong the backlash is. Because from what I've seen, and I've, I've, I've, I've asked is that if you talk to people about this, like you're starting a civil war, they just stare at you blankly. It's just, it's not, it doesn't even register in their mind. It's like Santa Claus could, you know, it's like people stay, you know, it's like, it's kind of like why people stay in marriages that are collapsing too long because, you know, they keep thinking, oh, they don't, they keep thinking it won't get, it can't get any worse or they don't, you know what I'm saying, you, or you don't sell stock because you think it'll,

it won't go any down any further. You know, they don't, they're, they're, they're adverse to believing things will get worse. Yes. And the other thing I was wondering about was, I've always thought this, I've spent way too much time thinking about this, is that, you know, if, so assume, let's assume, you know, that the either, really either side, the conservatives, I already know what the, the left would do. But the conservatives, when the civil war, do you think there are. massive executions or internment camps where they re-education camps and my problem with re-education camps is that is that you spend all this money they nod along with you you put them back out there and you're in the same position all over again because once again you think that these people

will be if you treat them kindly that when when they then reach a position of power they will reciprocate and they won't. That's my thoughts. My problem with re-education camps is when people say they're going to re-educate, re-education camps, what they really mean is that we're going to shoot you and we're going to beat the crap out of you. When China says, so you know what China is genociding the Uyghurs of Western China? They see that there are camps for volleyball and sports.

They say that the Uyghurs are being sent out. And that was just re-education camp. That's what I thought they were just reading. They say that too. But when asked by Western governments, what do the Uyghurs are doing? in the camps. They say, yeah, exactly. And yeah, so you know Hillary Clinton said that conservatives should be put into re-education camps? Yeah, bro. That I, I, yeah. It's scary when the former presidential candidate, the person who is nearly president, says that. And I mean, I think

there's going to be a lot of death squads. There's going to be a lot of just stuff. And because of what you say, where if you re-educate someone, and the problem is it's just easier to shoot someone than to spend years giving them, like, trying to talk them out of a position. Yeah, and the most cheap. Yeah, exactly. And one of the things with the, the issue the conservatives run into is the left has the vehicles that wield power and the right, the right has the force, like the guns, and the left has the bureaucracy in the organizations.

So the right, if it wins, will be stuck in this very awkward position of how the hell do we govern the country if everything is run by leftists. And what I think the right would do is it would just purge leftist institutions. It would go into Hollywood or Disney, no, sorry, Hollywood or Silicon Valley or Wall Street or the federal government. And it would say, hey, we are getting rid of your organization and we're replacing the federal government with AI. Imagine if the conservatives replaced the entire federal bureaucracy with AI, because what that would do is it would get rid of this entire back of the left supporters. and then it would cut out, it would cut out all of this money that goes to the, all this tax dollars, it would be redistributed to the conservatives who don't want to pay taxes.

And so I think that kind of thing would happen where if, if the right wins, they would have to go through the entire ruling class and either replace it with conservatives or computers. I was just saying when you were talking, I was like, I was like funny because like I feel like I'm on two sides of the of this like in some ways like i don't want to pay taxes but i also would love free health care you know so i was like oh torn the problem the problem that i run into here is that uh if the right wins the right or any side that wins or it's going to cannibalize their own people because the problem is the right wins is the right is no coherent message you have all these different sub factions so it immediately devolve into conflict between these different subfactions

Because, like, as of now, there's a huge divide in the right between the Nietzschean, like, more fascist-Darwinist side and then the Christian fundamentalists. If you try to get them in a room, they're not really going to agree on anything. And those are just two factions. There's, like, ten factions. So they'd go after each other. If the left wins, they'd spiral into virtues into, like, I mean, we know what the left looks like from communist societies. Like, the dictator sees its power. And then Stalin or Mao purge, people who disagree with them.

them. And the problem, so I say, I will never launch a revolution because everyone who launches revolutions, bad things happen to them because if you're the kind of person who launches a revolution, you are too dangerous for even your own side. So the people who launched the French or the Russian revolutions, those guys were all shot by their own side because if you're the kind of person to do that, you are dangerous enough that even your own side doesn't trust you. The only other question I was going to ask was because, as far as I'm concerned, we still, we already, you know, kind of had like a little agenda.

Like, yeah, yeah, now we've, we're at the end of the Civil War. Now it's like, how do you, what, what's the mop-up plan? But, um, but we just talked about that. My other other thing was, I was wondering if you had ever, did you ever see that movie Civil War? No, I didn't. I didn't think it would be good if I'm honest. Okay.

It's very neutral. Like I said, it's interesting because they don't, you don't even. realize what's happening. Yeah, you don't really, so, so, which bothers me, because I really thought it would have been better if they had done. If they had taken your video and they run with the concept of your, of one or two of your videos,

it would have been a much more interesting, but probably, um, it'd be a much more divisive film that they probably could have never got. No, yeah, exactly. Yeah.

So that would be dope as hell. If they could make my videos into a view, what would be especially dope would be the, the funds I'd make off selling. the rights to that video. But, no, that would be a great TV show. And that's what I think about in a daily basis. I think about how cool the events going on now are.

And the thing is, for the characters living in Game of Thrones, it's not that cool, but it's fun for us to watch them. And I frequently feel that way where the historic events we're living through now are objectively, incredibly interesting. But being shot isn't interesting. And, I mean, there's just so many angles. I think we live in this weird sci-fi dystopia. and one of my friends calls it a sci-fi dystopia

where loser bureaucrats win like all of the uncool people who like who want to all of like the people in class who complain like who like ask for more homework

that's the that those people who built our society today and so it's this we live in this weird surreal cringe dystopia but like AI is super cool like seeing the depth of the left's insanity is pretty fun

seeing Elon is like a Marvel character on the politics around the various coalition building like we could be in Game of Thrones now and I try to be grateful for that it is crazy that like the Grand Canyon exists or it is pretty crazy throwing in a plague in season three is pretty cool plot point

and and so we I do live in very interesting times. I wish someone could make a show about it. If I'm being fair, I haven't watched, I've only watched like one or two movies since COVID. I've just completely checked out of new culture. And for, I, uh, I haven't watched Civil War movie. Uh, I heard that the journalists are the good guys. And that's the biggest, uh, that's the biggest stretch involved.

And, um, I mean, the problem is that, so this is one of the, of the things that I ended the Danny Jones podcast with saying that we live in this weird thing called hyper-reality where the reality that we have to pretend exists and the reality that exists are so far apart. It's like there's this parallel alternate universe that we have to pretend exist in the public life and then we actually inhabit another universe. Like we have to pretend that we're still as racist as the Jim Crow South while Black people are. have huge affirmative action programs. We have to pretend that America's, the average American is as rich as he was in the Homer

Simpson time period. And that's just not true. And the problem is that the younger you get, the more you have to live in the real reality rather than the one that you have to pretend exists. So that's the problem with a civil war movie for how that actually make it real. Because if they made that movie real, it would require the ruling class going through too many of their statements. So if that movie was real, all of the characters would be poor and barely paying bills.

A lot of them would be mentally ill. There would be, like, weird political fanatics. It would be a much grittier and dirtier movie, and the establishment doesn't want to make that movie. It's not the movie I saw. Yeah. Yeah, like I said, it was very ambiguous that you never. You just never really know. You don't know who are the liberals, who are the conservatives.

You don't know what sparked it. You don't know. Even the speeches that are given are benign. Everything's, but you just know that there's a civil war and there's fighting. And you're right. The only humanizing or the, I don't know, I'm going to say, they're not anti-heroes. They're just whatever. If you had to say heroes, although there's nothing really that heroic, is that they just follow these journalists through the whole thing.

And it's almost feels like. they didn't have the budget to do the big battles. They spend the last 10 minutes of the film in the battle for Washington. And that's it. Other than that, it's this kind of driving around and seeing some, some helicopters that have been blown up. And maybe these guys are doing some horrible things.

And it's really not, it, but I can't, but that movie that the real life movie of this event never gets a budget in Hollywood. No, it would make so much money, though. if that if the real movie came out it would become a nationwide classic forever but just like you said like like look at disney yeah he doesn't care about that exactly which is amazing yeah you're you're you have a fiduciary responsibility to your stockholders like why are you making one like you make you made one bad movie yeah you learn from it no no no we're going to make two bad movies okay well then you definitely understand what's happening right no no three well yeah you have to know this is a bad

choice though for you have to understand what you're doing no no we're tanking this thing it's like aren't you getting paid yeah this like it doesn't make sense yeah so i went through a multi-year of basically grieving process to figure this out because realizing that the people in charge don't care there's a very strong difference in being a complete sociopath and trying to manipulate people for your own personal gain and being insane and suicidal and we're in the insane suicidal territory, not in the sociopath manipulation territory, where if the elites were just self-interested sociopaths, they would make lots of movies that did well, and they wouldn't care at all about the art, they'd just be trying to make the money.

And if Hollywood made a half-decent movie about, I don't know, any historic event, if they made a half-decent movie at the Crusades, it would make so much money, because there are so many guys who want to watch a cool movie at the Crusades that are starved for that. But I mean, all of the institutions, their aim is, and that thing is very important, where we expect government institutions to be rational, but it's made up of lots of people, and people aren't rational. And so the elites, and this is one of those horrifying conclusions you can come to, and you don't really know what to do with it, every faction of the elites, their goal is the of Western civilization, whether media, like, I would understand immigration up to a certain

point because you want to get cheap labor, but now we're at the point where it's just taking in immigrants to replace, to like replace the local population. That's the aim. Like if you look at diversity in of itself, their statistical aim is to get the percentage of white people as low as possible, not to make any money. It's just for that. And or so it's, it's, it's, It's media, government, corporations, every single one of these, their goal is to destroy our current society. It is not to make money. And once you realize that conclusion, it's just horrifying. Hey, you guys, I really appreciate you guys watching.

Do be a favor if you like the video, hit the subscribe button, hit the bell so you get notified of videos just like this. Leave a comment. Also, we're going to leave all of Rudyard's links in the description box. So you can just click on it, go straight to his channel, check out his videos. Please consider joining our Patreon. it's $10 a month. It helps us make these videos and we have Patreon

exclusive content on Patreon. We have about 15 minutes of this maybe about 20 minutes worth of conversation that we had prior to the podcast on this segment. It'll be on there. We're putting stuff up all the time.

I really appreciate it. Thank you. Please consider joining. See you.